Standing Committee C

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill

Clause 7 - Energy requirements of buildings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Stunell: I thank all those colleagues who have been able to join us again this morning. We made good progress last week and I hope that we can quickly come to a conclusion today with equal success, although judging from the smile on the Minister's face, I suspect that that may not be quite the case.
 The clause clarifies that it is lawful for development plans drawn up by local planning authorities to specify the provision of energy from renewable sources in their developments. The London borough of Merton set a precedent with the policy adopted in its plan, which was based on the expectation that all non-residential developments of more than 1,000 sq m should include renewable energy production to provide 10 per cent. of energy requirements in a new building, where viable. There is now a list of a further 24 authorities undertaking a similar process. The clause is designed to prevent those 24 and others that follow them from facing the difficulties, hassle and uncertainty that Merton faced. 
 My point is in no way partisan. The Labour party controls the London borough of Merton, and the other 24 authorities are a good mixture by type, geographical location and political control. Perhaps the Committee will understand if I draw attention to the fact that one of the first authorities in the queue to follow Merton is the London borough of Bromley, and one of its Members of Parliament spoke on Second Reading. The clause would directly facilitate local authorities represented in the House by a wide range of Members with a considerable variety of outlooks, so I hope that nobody will accuse of riding a partisan hobby-horse. 
 The Minister has sent me a letter, which I have placed on the Table and which is available to other members of the Committee. I understand that he intends to speak to that letter. I seek some stronger and further assurances from the Minister. It is important that those authorities now in the process and those that may follow them should be given not only a no hassle guarantee, but some encouragement that following Merton is a good thing to do. The Minister's officials—not those concerned with building controls, but those from elsewhere in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—made it difficult for Merton to achieve what is now being achieved. At several steps along the way, officials from the Department told the borough in plain words, ''If you dropped this, it would a lot easier for everybody.'' 
 One, perhaps fortunate, consequence was that Merton girded its loins, did the business anyway and challenged the ODPM to put up or shut up. Due to either mature consideration or perhaps embarrassment, the Department shut up. Merton now has the relevant provisions in its draft plan, unamended by the Department. News of the likelihood of hassle and conflict with the ODPM, spread through the powerful network of local government communication, has put off many local authorities. Goodness knows, there are enough problems between central and local government already, without stirring things up. It is a significant disincentive if the word on the net is, ''Folks, it would be much better if you didn't do this''. I hope that the Minister agrees, as I think his letter sets out, that the question should not be whether authorities can squeeze such plans through, but whether they should be positively encouraged to do so. I want a no hassle guarantee. 
 One qualification in the Minister's letter relates to ensuring that there are no undue burdens on business. I certainly agree about that. It is like asking whether the provisions should be reasonable: of course they should be reasonable, and of course there should not be undue burdens. The Green Alliance, among others, has set out mechanisms that might be a reasonable test of whether there are undue burdens, taking into account land prices, for instance. Merton managed to satisfy that test, and it would be helpful if the Minister said that the ODPM was minded not to be unduly restrictive in its interpretation of an undue burden. 
 The Minister's letter sets quite a lot of store by the idea that we should wait for planning policy statement 22, which will come in the summer. On another occasion, I had some fun at the Government's expense with the civil service definition of ''spring''. On that occasion, spring ended on 31 July. If spring ends on 31 July, I want to know when summer starts and ends. Please may we not be left for month after month with uncertainty hanging about? In such circumstances, local authorities, which have other timetables to meet with regard to plan setting, will say, ''Oh—''. I will not use the non-parliamentary word that sprang to mind. An authority will say, ''Well, skip it. We'll go ahead and leave out the provision,'' and for another 10 years, that authority will lose the opportunity that is there. 
 I want to know what the timing is, and I want to know that the Minister will provide encouragement. I hope that he will also pick up some of the strong points made in the Green Alliance consultation, which was held in January and attended by officials from the ODPM and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It was pointed out that there is tremendous advantage to sustainability if we allow the concept to include combined heat and power. I hope that, as well as speaking to the letter, the Minister will say that his Department is now minded to ensure that the Thames Gateway project, for instance, will have a significant slice of zero-energy housing. The Government are the landlord and planning authority, and, with the ODPM, the approver of 
 plans, and it should be simple for such a straightforward step to be taken. 
 I hope that I have made it clear that if the Government give me the assurance that I want, the clause will not be necessary. In that case, it will be on the record, available to any planning officer in the country, that a Minister speaking on behalf of the ODPM said that sustainability is a right and proper thing to include in local plans; that the Government want to encourage local authorities to do so, and that they will do nothing to put barriers in the way of authorities doing that if they so choose. If the Minister can give that assurance, I will be content.

Brian White: The Minister has gone some way towards alleviating my fears by clarifying, in his letter, the legal doubt, but one of my concerns is that the requirement in the letter to stick closely to the wording in the Merton plan may be unduly restrictive. I want to ask some questions, because we are in danger of missing another opportunity and having to return in two or three years' time to ask why we did not use it. The Government would be in difficulty because they had not used the opportunity. The Minister should reflect on the danger that removing the clause will mean another missed opportunity.
 The Government will, through the sustainable communities plan, be doing an awful lot of work on housing development in the next few years. The Minister will know, representing a constituency in the same sub-region as mine, about the Milton Keynes and south midlands study. Shortly there will be an examination in public. Are the inspectors and regional planning guidance authorities being advised that taking into account the energy requirements of the new buildings is a valid way forward? 
 It is important, particularly in light of the number of local plans that are undergoing examination at the moment, and the examination in public of regional plans, that a message should come from the ODPM, to the inquiries and the people who are doing the work, that it is not only permissible but desirable to deal with the energy requirements. It is particularly important that that message should go to inspectors, because they sometimes take time to catch up with advances in Government policy. 
 Including the requirement in local plans is probably the cheapest way for the Government to achieve their objectives on fuel poverty, energy efficiency and matters such as the CHP target. All those could be achieved much more easily through the mechanism of local plans than by the interventionist model and going to the Treasury for money. The Government are in danger of costing themselves money later by not taking the present opportunity. Recently, in another Department, the head of a section who was talking about CHP did not know that it was a manifesto commitment, or that it was in the energy White Paper, and even asked, ''What is CHP going to do for energy efficiency?'' When that kind of comment is made by a civil servant, it makes for an ambience that affects people further down the line. 
 I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) about the message that is going to local authorities. If local planners do not believe that something is a key requirement, they will not do it. It is important that the Minister not only states, in his letter, that the matter will be in PPS 22, but explains that the Government want to make progress with it. 
 We know that the approach works. In development corporations that have used it—and I cite Milton Keynes development corporation, which had its own energy rating system—it advanced tremendously the cause of energy efficiency in building new houses. The requirement in the local plan was very simple; there would be certain energy requirements. If that could happen in Milton Keynes 30 years ago, why can it not happen now? Local authorities should be encouraged to take that route. 
 The Minister's letter uses the words ''no undue burden'', but something else is important—a level playing field. What builders fear most, and a reason why things do not happen, is that those who want to do the right thing fear being undercut by the unscrupulous. The requirement that there be ''no undue burden'' is actually the Minister saying, ''We will go to the lowest level.'' That is what happens in reality. I ask the Minister to reflect on that, and to make it clear that the idea that there should be ''no undue burden'' is intended to mean not going to the lowest level, but aiming for the highest.

Alan Simpson: Perhaps I should begin with a declaration of interest. I am about to do precisely what the clause suggests, and I suppose that that gives me a vested interest in supporting it. The reason I mention that is that, having acquired a derelict shell in the middle of Nottingham, with a view to doing work on it over the next year, I have been surprised at the reactions of the people I count as my friends. By and large they think, albeit affectionately, that I am daft. I shall not ask hon. Members to comment, but the experience raises issues, for me, about the extent to which our exhortations as a Government to take the sustainability agenda seriously are believed by the public. If one cannot get one's friends to believe that one is serious, how does one get doubters to believe it?
 The Labour Government have the right to be proud of a great deal. We are the only Government in history who have set a target to eradicate fuel poverty in its entirety by 2016, eradicating fuel poverty for those in greatest need by 2010. We will be faced with the practical issue of how to deal with those parts of the housing stock that present the greatest difficulties—the hard-to-heat housing stock. There is no question but that we are going to have to address the issue of renewable energies in that process. 
 I was reading a report from Neighbourhood Energy Action, Stratford-on-Avon district council and South Warwickshire housing association, which set out their initiative for solutions to rural fuel poverty. I was taken aback by a simple fact in the introduction: it points out that 28 per cent. of the rural population do not have access to mains gas, which is the cheapest fuel 
 for home heating. If we combine that with the presence of solid wall properties and the inability to put in cavity wall insulation, there is no question but that we are going to have to look towards renewable energy to address the energy needs of the 21st century. The question is how we do that. 
 Quite a long time ago, my local authority in Nottingham invested in a district heating system that took domestic waste and put the heat that it generated back into heating for 20,000 to 30,000 homes in the city along with the courts and the major commercial centre. The authority faced many difficulties but in principle it was right to do that. 
 When I look at the list of initiatives that have been taken in the decades since, I see that they are very few. As I understand it, only one project, in Southampton, attempts to harness geothermal energy. That is an imaginative project, and we should welcome and support it. Grants are now available for photovoltaics, and those are welcome even though the installation costs are still substantial for most households that would consider it—barely affordable, unless one is starting from a position of gutting the place. 
 We have to look at the mechanisms and incentives for local authorities. I was almost tempted to say to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that in introducing and speaking in support of clause 7 he ought perhaps to have rebranded it as a counter-terrorist measure. We ought to get the chief scientific advisor to come and add his comments—or not—about the risk that ignoring climate change and the energy and carbon emissions that we generate will be the greatest threat to our society for the rest of our lives. To give local authorities the permission to set targets seems to me not to be an undue burden at all. 
 The danger is that we will go from saying that this is light-touch, non-intrusive regulation to not being serious. That is the greatest threat that we face in undermining so much of what the Government have done. We have taken the important steps, and in many respects we have taken seriously the easy steps in that process. However, we now know that we have hit a critical position in our warm front programme. There are only so many low-energy light bulbs that people can eat; one would want to fit only so many draught excluders; only so many properties can take cavity wall insulation; and one can only bung in so much loft insulation. 
 We have to look not just at the consumption of energy but at the generation of energy. That is why giving local authorities the permission to give the lead in practical terms to the arguments set out nationally by the Government in theoretical terms does not seem to be an intrusive burden. In fact it is almost a green light to get local authorities on our side. If we can do that as a Committee and a Government, we need to ask ourselves why we would want not to give that green light of encouragement.

John Hayes: I am inspired to speak in this debate by the contributions of the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and for Nottingham, South
 (Alan Simpson). The contribution of the latter was, as ever, an apposite one. I do not think that he is strange, peculiar or weird. Indeed, I regard him extraordinarily highly. The hon. Gentlemen's contributions draw our attention to three points. They are the only points that I shall make in this debate because I want to have the maximum time to move on to consider the Bill in full.
 First, when we consider such issues, it is vital that we set our expectations as high as possible, because, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East pointed out, unless we set the bar high, we have little chance of clearing it. The danger faced by all Governments of all parties is trimming at an early stage: setting expectations at a medium or low level, and then perhaps not even achieving those low expectations. There is an issue about how much we expect. That can be dealt with without obligation; it can be dealt with in guidance. The hon. Gentleman talked about making the measures desirable. I thought that that was an appropriate way of referring to the encouragement needed or the incentive—we are certainly talking about an expectation—to set the standards high. 
 Secondly, there is the issue of long-termism: the strategic thinking that needs to imbue our approach to this kind of measure. Local and central Government, because of the nature of human frailty, make mistakes, but mistakes in housing are mistakes that future generations pay for dearly. It seems to me that our history over the past 30 or 40 years shows us that, when we make those mistakes, we live with a legacy that is sometimes very hard to do much about. The cost of bringing in measures that would allow for energy efficiency in existing properties is often prohibitive because of the scale, the number of properties and the nature of the materials used to construct them. The judgments that we make now will have a long-term impact. Housing errors cannot be easily corrected. 
 The third issue—perhaps this is where I move away from the comments that have already been expressed, or at least add to them—is that in looking at sustainability, renewable energy and the idea of building into our considerations strategic thinking about energy needs and how we are going to satisfy them, we need to look at the impact that the measures have environmentally. I am talking about the footprint that they make. There are significant differences between the approaches involved. It would be monstrous of the Government to have low expectations about, for example, solar energy and solar panels, which can be fitted to houses with a small impact on their aesthetics, and yet be dictatorial about wind energy and 330 ft wind turbines, which have a massive and often detrimental effect on their environment and the landscape. Measuring the effect of different approaches to renewable energy is important. Although I share the views of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and of other contributors, it is important that there is better measurement when it comes to the footprint—the environmental consequences—that will be left by the Government's measures on renewable energy and the technology associated with it. 
 I hope that the Minister will address those points. The Prince of Wales, who has figured once already in our considerations, made two speeches, nine years apart, which I want to refer to in summing up. I know that you will be ready to pounce on me if I stray from the subject, Mr. Hurst, so I hasten to say that I am not going to mention the prayer book; mentioning it once is quite enough. On 30 May 1984, the Prince of Wales said: 
''One of the prime requirements of a good architect should be to be concerned about the way people live, about the environment they inhabit and the kind of community they want to live in.''
 That is about setting our expectations high and thinking long term about our housing policies. Nine years later, he said, 
''we must build houses that people actually want to live in—not repeat the mistakes of earlier decades which saw the creation of impersonal soulless estates and tower blocks which created more problems than they solved.''
 Of course, the Prince of Wales was not simply talking about energy, fuel poverty or renewables, but much of what he said could be applied to the subject we are debating in the clause. There is a need for high expectation, long-term thinking and a need to consider the whole impact of the housing decisions that we make.

Joan Walley: I feel compelled to speak briefly in support of the comments of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and my hon. Friends. I would like the Minister to tell us why he cannot support clause 7. To me, it is the fundamental part of the proposals.
 It is clear from the membership of the Committee that we are a group of individuals very committed to dealing with climate change, and committed to environmental sustainability. We are here because we choose through our work in Parliament and in our constituencies to seek a joined-up approach throughout Government, local government and the country. To me, the bottom line is that wherever there is an opportunity to advance the argument, we take that opportunity, and we catch legislation as it comes by. This private Member's Bill has come to Committee, and we all want to make it work. 
 Clause 7 is fundamental to what the Government are trying to do in other Departments. We have already had draft electricity and gas amendment orders. This afternoon, there will be a debate on Department of Trade and Industry regulations that will advance the whole issue by a tiny step. It seems to me that we are losing out on a wonderful opportunity. The ODPM is looking at its housing programme and all the new housing that is going to be built. We have heard about the sustainable communities Bill, and the money that has been spent on the housing pathfinder, which has been spent in my constituency as well. 
 Why can we not have a bottom line? Are the Government saying that they will introduce a two-tier system so that in the affluent south-east, where people associate quality with sustainability and there is a question of what is affordable in terms of what is right for the environment, the regulations will be taken up 
 by local authorities who are at the cutting edge of delivering the environmental agenda? Those authorities might be prepared to make extra investment where they may have expertise among the officers drawing up the proposals. That might be all right, but it will not be all right for other local authorities in the north-west. 
 Are the Government going to introduce a two-tier system of housing that will make it more difficult to deal with fuel poverty issues and to meet our obligations on those issues in 2016 and 2010? I want the Minister to explain why he is not taking that opportunity when it is ready and waiting. 
 Finally, I would like to talk about one more issue. I remember, because of all the wonderful work that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has done, visiting a housing initiative with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) in Nottinghamshire in the early days of the Environmental Audit Select Committee. We were shown new housing in which the windows had the highest possible energy efficiency standards. That visit raised the question why regulations were not applied across the country so that all homes being built could have those higher energy efficiency standards, not just the few in an area where they had been promoted. One of the consequences of our not having introduced the regulations was that none of those windows were supplied by British manufacturing; they were supplied by Scandinavian contractors. It was early days for the Labour Government, and we had not provided a steer for that to happen. 
 It is very short-sighted of the Government not to consider the long-term implications of the matter. I know that the Minister is committed to sustainable development issues; I therefore ask him to say why clause 7 is not appropriate, and I shall listen with great interest to his response.

David Kidney: What my hon. Friend said struck a chord with me. In 1997–98 she visited a development in Nottingham that could not get manufactured energy-efficient materials such as windows in this country. At the end of last year, I went to BedZed, the zero-emissions development at Beddington Corner, Hackbridge, which is on the Epsom line. The development is an example of marvellous energy efficiency: it has triple-glazed windows, insulated cavities and loft spaces, district waste and heating systems, and power points in the car parks for electric cars to recharge. Everything about the development is highly desirable, and every bit of the construction equipment comes from elsewhere in the world because it could not be made in this country. Six years on, British manufacturers have still not been given a signal to give them the confidence that there would be a home market for their products if they made them. I say, come on Minister, give them that signal now!

Phil Hope: Everyone seems to have had their Weetabix this morning. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove gave a stirring
 introduction to clause 7, duly followed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that they will accept my assurances that the clause is not needed, because the Government share their aspirations.
 Planning policy statements, especially in relation to policy context, set out how sustainable development should be tackled. I assure the Committee, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, that increased development of renewable energy resources is essential to facilitate the delivery of the Government's commitments on climate change and renewable energy. 
 Positive planning, which is set out in PPS 22, facilitates renewable energy development, and we believe that it can contribute to all the elements of the Government's sustainable development strategy. The statement is central in that regard. A consultation draft was published in November 2003, and following representations we agreed to add, in the final version, additional material on encouraging the inclusion in plans of policies relating to the use of renewables in buildings. I will come to PPS 1 in a moment.

Joan Walley: Will my hon. Friend expand on what he means by ''encouraging''?

Phil Hope: I cannot tell my hon. Friend now what the wording will be, as the document is still being drafted. However, when it is completed, I want all my hon. Friends to appreciate that it is the vehicle by which the outcomes that everyone wants will be achieved. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said, we want to set high expectations and to have a long-term vision, but we do not want to set obligations that will not achieve the outcomes that we require. We are trying to strike a balance—

John Hayes: The key point is whether there will be encouragement or expectation, as there is a difference between the two. Although I said clearly that I did not expect an obligation, the Minister will understand the relevance of the word ''expectation'' in planning policy guidance.

Phil Hope: I do understand that but, regrettably, I cannot give the wording to Committee members this morning. The points that have been made on PPS 22—both here and outside the Committee—push very hard for it to have additional wording to encourage the use of renewable energy within buildings.
 It is difficult, and we have to reach a balance. I understand that all Committee members want to go further, faster, but we have to ensure that any targets in proposed policies do not act as a deterrent to needed development. Hon. Members will appreciate that we have to get that balance right. 
 As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has made clear, it is already possible for local planning authorities to include targets in development plans that set an expectation for the percentage of total energy in new buildings to come from renewable sources. Some local authorities are already doing that: the Merton plan, to name the example that he gave, is a case in point. The hon. Gentleman was rather harsh 
 in his assessment of ODPM officials, but I will not pursue that. There was a difficult issue to resolve in the matter that he mentioned. As he says, other planning authorities are proposing to follow the example of Merton. 
 I have cited PPS 22, which is specific. I now want to bring to Committee members' attention draft PPS 1: the core document that outlines the planning principles that affect the whole planning system, and from which subsequent planning guidance will flow. That overarching statement of core planning policies and principles was published on 1 March, and it puts sustainable development at the heart of the planning system. 
 The document, which is now out for consultation, states: 
''Policies should reflect a preference for minimising the need to consume new resources over the lifetime of the development by making more efficient use or re-use of existing resources rather than making new demands on the environment; and for seeking to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources. Consideration should be given to encouraging energy efficient buildings, community heating schemes, and the use of combined heat and power in developments''.
 That is a significant development on the route down which we wish to travel. It is a very recent document and I appreciate that some Committee members may not yet have seen all the details. It gives an assurance of the seriousness of our intent on energy efficiency, and on embedding renewables and CHP into the system. 
 We are taking new steps in the planning system. That is why we do not need the clause. I have given assurances regarding new wording in PPS 22 and the core planning principles outlined in PPS 1. Committee members have raised the issue of how people feel about that culture. There are keys phrases such as ''encouraging expectations'' and so on in legislation, but it is important that everybody is committed to the issue. Committee members are right: the Government need to give a lead, but everyone, including the local authorities, needs to play their part. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) gave a good example, but I cannot remember the exact location even though he read out the entire address. That is the kind of example that we should hold up. It demonstrates the high levels of expectation and achievement that are possible when people put their minds to it. The more that we can identify, celebrate and promote such examples of good practice, the more we can encourage planning authorities, developers and others to see whether they can incorporate similar measures into their plans, whether they are working in Milton Keynes, my own constituency of Corby, where housing is set to grow, or anywhere else.

Alan Simpson: I thank the Minister for giving way and for the tone of what he has been saying. I do not wish to press him on the discussions that he is still having on PPS 22, but will he take from this sitting a recognition that an important distinction must be drawn between the message that goes from the Government to local authorities, which takes the form of encouragement, and the powers that local
 authorities have to make that encouragement a reality? Only if local authorities feel that they can set requirements will developers and manufacturers accept the seriousness of the message and the fact that there is a market for such buildings. The question is whether the sequence will be ''encourage and encourage'', or ''encourage and empower to set standards''.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Government certainly will consider the tenor of this debate as well as specifics about the direction in which people wish to travel. The statements in PPS 1 are significant—in fact, they are profound—in that they frame the whole of the planning system and its purpose, not only for local authorities but at a regional level as local authorities establish regional economic development strategies that include sustainable development. I shall not go through every part of Government policy, but a consistent theme is played out through all the mechanisms and tiers of central and local government.
 I also wish to mention the sustainable buildings task group. Yesterday, I met Sir John Harman and Victor Benjamin, the co-chairs of the task group established by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister. Its purpose is to seek a quick response from the public and private sectors as to what we can do to ensure that we build sustainable buildings. I have encouraged the task group to bring forward its recommendations as swiftly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said that we should grab opportunities as they arise. The task group presents us with a real opportunity to capture support for what we are doing not only from the public sector but from the private sector as well.

Joan Walley: Is there scope at this late stage for the task group to consult with CERAM Research in north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent college of further education, which is about to set up a £5 million construction centre? It is essential that we research new construction methods that incorporate this agenda into new work and new investments.

Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I shall draw those examples of good practice in my hon. Friend's constituency to the attention of the task group. It is seeking consultation with house builders, local authorities and regional authorities, and is always on the lookout for examples of good practice.
 I want to pick up on the point about the timetable; that is, when is the summer not summer but spring, or the other way around. The final draft of PPS 22 will be published this year. In addition to that statement with new wording, we will publish a companion guide that will give examples of good practice—we heard about three or four this morning. We must ensure that the companion guide is as comprehensive as possible so that local authorities, the private sector and everyone concerned will understand that its aims are not just theory. We do not have to travel all the way to 
 Scandinavia to find examples of good practice; they can be found in the UK.

Andrew Stunell: The Minister is being extremely helpful, but ''the summer'' has now become ''this year''. Perhaps he would elaborate a little more on that.
 The unitary development plans produced by local authorities are deemed to be in force and can be used as operational documents, even at the draft stage. Can the Minister give an assurance that the material that will be published will also be operational in the relationship between his and other ODPM officials and local planning authorities, which still look over their shoulder and wonder whether they have to go through the same hassle that Merton did?

Phil Hope: I wanted to address that point. I understand that there was what the hon. Gentleman described as a period of hassle for Merton. As I said, his opinion of ODPM officials was a little harsh, but that is water under the bridge. Whatever lessons had to be learned have been learned. We want to ensure that responsibility lies with local planning authorities—not only the 24 but the other 380. Given the encouragement in PPS1 and PPS22, we hope that all authorities will share the enthusiasm of those 24.
 When I talk about this year, I mean this summer. The consultation on the planning guidance closed on 30 January, and we had 600 responses. We want to publish the results in the summer, along with the companion guide, which will give good examples. I am not sure whether I could give many more positive and encouraging messages to indicate the direction in which the Government want to travel.

Brian White: There is one way in which the Minister could do that. The ODPM is a landowner, and some of its agencies are developers in English Partnerships. It could give a strong steer to the market through its actions as a landowner and through its agencies. Will the Minister give a commitment this morning that the ODPM, in its guise as landowner, and its agencies will live up to our expectations as regards renewable energy in new buildings?

Phil Hope: I regret that I cannot wing it completely this morning and give a commitment on behalf of English Partnerships, its landowners and property owners. Clearly, however, we must tell ourselves what we tell everyone else. My hon. Friend's general point is fair, and in dealing with local authorities and private house builders, we should remember that we have our own stock. We talked earlier about Crown property being covered by the Bill. We understand the need at least to put our own house in order if not to demonstrate the way forward, and the millennium villages and communities are examples of where the Government have put their money where our mouth is and sought to encourage excellent practice.

Brian White: But my understanding is that English Partnerships has just accepted a tender from a builder who, rather than proposing a programme that takes environmental issues into consideration, will build the largest number of houses at the lowest price. That goes
 against the grain of what the Minister says. Will he therefore take this morning's message back to his agencies?

Phil Hope: I will take it back. I cannot comment on the case that my hon. Friend raises, but the message has been well and truly put across this morning.

John Hayes: This is an important part of the discussion. If the Government carried out a cost-benefit analysis of the effectiveness of different renewable technologies or of measures to improve ventilation facilities and the retention of heat, those affected by the additional overheads would be reassured. The worst thing that we could do would be to force people to do things that did not yield great benefits. That would not be necessary if we did a cost-benefit analysis.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Of course, any new building regulations undergo a consultation period and a regulatory impact assessment to ensure that they will have the desired outcome. That also ensures that there are no unintended consequences, and that people do not, for example, stop building houses for others to live in because the regulations are over-prescriptive, lacking in flexibility or unable to deal with different market circumstances. What matters is what works, what will encourage people to move in the right direction, and what are the levers for change that will affect central and local government and the private sector as they go about their building work.
 We have had a good and long discussion, and the Government well understand the Committee's enthusiasm. In addressing hon. Members' points, I have explained why the clause is not needed and set out the specific new steps that we are taking to ensure that we move in the right direction. With that, I hope that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and others will accept that the clause cannot stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Stunell: We have had a very good debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to it. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the discussion and that he felt the heat on this issue. That is not really fair on him, because he is speaking on behalf of the ODPM, and his ministerial responsibilities do not cover this area. I know that what he has had to do is at second or even third hand, which is all the more credit to him.
 There is a grey area between what building regulations can reach and what planning controls and policy can address. My clause was an attempt to ensure that the Government face up to the need to deal with that crossover so that we avoid the situation, which has happened, in which someone comes up with one way of solving the problem but is told that it is a matter for building regulations, not planning, or the converse in which someone comes up with a solution but is told that it is a matter for planning, not for building regulations. Some of the basic questions, such as orientation of houses, slip through the gap. 
 Unless sustainability is a material and proper consideration and is built into planning, we will continue to make the same mistakes and build houses with large windows facing north. As the hon. 
 Member for South Holland and The Deepings said eloquently, we have been making mistakes in building construction for the past six or seven decades. We keep looking back and thinking that we would have a much more sustainable building stock if we knew then what we know now, or if we had taken intelligent decisions based on what we knew but did not act on. 
 I hope that the Minister understands what the Committee is trying to do and what my clause is trying to achieve. From the outset, I have had much support and help from members of the Town and Country Planning Association—the professional body of planners—who were clear that my description of the Merton process was nearer to reality than the Minister's. However, let us not go down that path. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made a very helpful contribution when he said that we should aim to set high standards. Standards tend to be diluted as the process goes on: if we do not start with high standards, we will not even finish with medium ones. I hope that the Minister will accept that we need to look at the long term. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also made the very important point that we need to consider micro-generation—the small contributions that can be made at individual building sites—as well as macro-generation. In the 1960s, we used to build power stations of 1,500 MW. In the future, we will build 15 KW power stations. We need to start thinking differently, and I hope that my new clause and the Minister's good intentions will make it easier to do that. 
 Last week, the hon. Gentleman suggested an index of beauty and introduced the new concept of monarchy diktats, apparently citing the Prince of Wales as an authority for just about everything. I believe, however, that we should be more rational and objective. Nevertheless, I thank him for his support for what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do. 
 The hon. Member for Nottingham, South spoke eloquently about his plans. I must tell him that Nottingham is not on the list of 24 authorities in the queue, but perhaps he will put that right soon. 
 Other Members made important points, especially about sustainability being an opportunity for jobs and employment. We must switch on the concept of sustainability. So many industries and producers are knocking on my door, never mind the Government's door, saying that they have a product that they could build, manufacture or market in this country to the benefit of the UK economy if they had a sufficiently large market. I hope that the Government—a Labour Government, for goodness' sake—are seized of the importance of that. 
 The BedZed project was mentioned, and is another example of hassle. I happen to know a little about that project. It is based in the London borough of Sutton, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. It had the most awful trouble getting permission from anybody in Whitehall to make a concessionary sale of land in order for that development to go ahead. That is another example of the institutional barriers that mean that there is only one BedZed in the 
 country. That is because other local authorities think, ''We don't need the hassle which comes from locking horns with central Government on those issues.''

David Kidney: One thing that I did not mention about BedZed is the name of the architect: Bill Dunster. The Minister should note his name and have a meeting with him, because he is keen to develop the BedZed concept across the country. He is in talks with local councils and Departments about future sites, but he could do with some helping hands to get some work done. For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)—he has even been to Stoke-on-Trent.

Andrew Stunell: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would want to withdraw the word ''even.''
 That was a helpful intervention. The same Bill Dunster has produced an estimate on the likely additional cost of having the requirement for sustainability built in—BedZed multiplied. He pointed out that with a 100-unit BedZed, which is a zero-energy construction, there would be on-costs of about 30 per cent., but if that number were increased to 5,000, the on-costs would be negligible. With a larger volume, the unit cost and other costs drop, and we move from having costs to having cost advantages, as we can consider using local—or at least UK-produced—materials. 
 I return to my point about Thameside, and I hope that the Minister will take that message back. He said that he was interested to hear that the draft was beefed up following consultation, and that the final version will be far stronger and far more positive. I am extremely pleased to hear that, and I am pleased that there will be a guide setting out some of the possibilities opened up by the note. I look forward to seeing both of them in the summer. I do not know if Hansard goes in for capital letters, but I should like the words ''in the summer'' to be capitalised. I should like to think that when we carefully consider the Minister's words in the cold light of Hansard, we can say that they permit local authorities to get weaving with their plans now, on the basis that the draft will allow them to go in the direction in which the whole Committee has said that it wants them to go. 
 I commended the clause at the beginning of today's proceedings and I have received some assurances. I know that the Minister is a man of integrity, and that his Department has all our best interests at heart, most of the time. I should like to think that the fact that this clause appeared in my Bill has been a major stimulus to the Department getting its skates on. I hope that Members' contributions to the debate have persuaded the Minister that, were he or the Deputy Prime Minister to think of backsliding, a significant number of Members would be on his back in a flash. On that basis, I shall not press the clause at this stage. 
 Question put and negatived.
Clause 7 disagreed to.
Clause 8Energy efficiency of housesin multiple occupation

Clause 8 - Energy efficiency of houses

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab): I have great sympathy for the promoters of private Members' Bills, having recently been round that track. I have no wish to derail this one, because I know how sensitive they are. Having said that, I am afraid that the Minister has some more serious explaining to do, because this clause should not be needed in the Bill, as it should have been covered by the Housing Bill that is passing through the House. It was not in that Bill as it went into Committee. It is my understanding that that has not been altered in Committee.
My Bill set out to license houses in multiple occupation. One of the main reasons why it set out to do so was to deal with the appalling conditions encountered in many HMOs, particularly with their energy efficiency. That relates to the wider policy implications that we aired this morning. In places such as my constituency, there are far too many ancient terraces where impoverished tenants sit in draughty, icy rooms, huddled over single-bar electric fires, struggling to keep warm and keeping an anxious eye on the meter to see whether it needs to be fed again. Those are archaic conditions, but they still apply today.
In many cases, we are talking about buildings that have a standard assessment procedure rating in single figures. In other words, they are appalling in terms of the environment, comfort and fuel poverty. This is housing stock that has the worst energy efficiency, energy conservation and fuel poverty. Those are three key parts of Government policy. The content of the clause was agreed in my Bill; it was consistent with Government policy, and I am faintly appalled, and very disappointed, to find this Government, of all Governments, not going forward consistently in policy terms, but retracting. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South reminded us, they are retracting on the most serious issue facing the world: that of climate change. We can make a significant contribution to climate change by dealing with the energy condition of HMOs.
I understand that there may be some reservations on the part of the ODPM. It does not want to deter landlords. It does not want to lose private rented accommodation from the market, where it is needed. On the other hand, if we permit standards as low as they are now, there is little point in having HMO registration in the Housing Bill, because it legitimises the worst possible conditions. That is what provoked the desire for legislation. I require a serious explanation from the Minister on that. I realise that it is not his fault, and I do not hold him personally responsible, but he is the unfortunate person who must justify his Department.
Perhaps I am simple—do not answer that one—but I cannot see why the ODPM finds the issue a problem. 
It may feel that setting excessively rigorous standards will drive landlords out of business, but it is in control of the situation because it will set the energy standards that landlords will have to meet. It can ensure that standards are not unduly rigorous. Obviously it is unreasonable to expect to turn a Georgian or Victorian terrace into the most energy-efficient building that could be built today; they do not have cavity walls and so on. However, there is a reasonable level of energy efficiency that can be expected and achieved at a reasonable cost. Moreover, it is perfectly possible for registration schemes to allow landlords a reasonable time in which to conform to new requirements. Indeed, that is covered in the clause.
What is the problem, then? I cannot see one and I do not know where the ODPM finds one. Considering the question on pure principle, I am strongly tempted to invite the Committee to oppose the deletion of the clause, but, for the sake of the Bill, I am not going to do that. However, the Minister owes us not only an explanation, but a commitment that the Government's long-held policy will be upheld and delivered through appropriate amendments to the Housing Bill. That way, the clause will become genuinely surplus to requirements.
Brian White: Does my hon. Friend agree that achieving the same objectives through the warm front programme and other alternative schemes would be far more expensive?
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which underlines my point. The energy efficiency commitments and warm front schemes would be far less monetarily efficient if they were applied in the context that we are discussing, instead of by landlords, in a strictly commercial context. We shall achieve less energy conservation for our money and take fewer people out of fuel poverty. I ask the Minister for just two things: a coherent explanation of the reasons for deleting the clause and a clear undertaking that the issues will be properly addressed in the Housing Bill.
Alan Simpson: I follow that eloquent argument in favour of retaining such an important clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is right that the most coherent argument for removing it would be an assurance that the relevant provisions would be made in the Housing Bill. We have had meetings with the Minister on the matter. It is correct that the clause was not originally in the Bill and that there is still some resistance to including it now.
Without the clause we would be in deep trouble. In the debate on the previous clause a number of hon. Members talked about the importance of setting ambitious targets and high hurdles. However, we should remind ourselves that those targets and hurdles are already in place. We have an unambiguous, non-negotiable legal obligation to eradicate all fuel poverty in the UK by 2016. We have set an interim target of eradicating fuel poverty among the most vulnerable by 2010, but we have made a legal undertaking to eradicate the whole problem by 2016.
I mention that because the Government's Fuel Poverty Advisory Group has recently issued a report that says that, based on the current spending allocated to the warm front programme, we shall not succeed. The report says that we shall have to increase expenditure on warm front by at least 50 per cent. to have a cat in hell's chance of fulfilling the Government's legal undertaking. We must make a choice on how to meet those undertakings.
The clause gives us a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not necessary to go to the Chancellor and try to persuade him of the case for a 50 per cent. increase in the warm front budget. We can do by legislation and regulation what in other cases must be done by direct investment. The funny thing is that this is not only a win-win-win situation; it is hard to find anyone who objects to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown was right to say that the Government did not object to the clause in his Bill. It is difficult to understand what has happened in the meantime to make it objectionable when other changes have come on side in support of the proposal.
In my constituency the major landlords' organisation is asking for a clear regulatory framework because that will allow decent landlords to be distanced from cowboy landlords. Its members say that they all pay the penalty for and suffer the stigma of the reputation given to them by cowboy landlords. Decent landlords are not afraid of decent standards. They can play a contributory part in the programme that the Government are rightly setting and they want to be part of the credit list rather than the debit list.
We are also now getting pressure from those in the private energy sector, which has an energy efficiency commitment obligation to put money into energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. They have hit difficulties and reached some of the limits of what they can do easily. They are coming back to us and saying that they are in an impossible position under the current law. When they go to private landlords, particularly those of houses in multiple occupation, and say that they can provide different energy and insulation systems which will help to provide decent standards of thermal efficiency in the home, by and large the landlords say, ''Get out. You only want to sell products. Don't call us, we'll call you.'' Those in the energy sector are coming back to us as parliamentarians and saying, ''We're on side; the Government asked us to be part of the solution and we are keen to be part of it, but we cannot compel people to engage with your programme. You must set a rules-based framework in which people must work. We will then become part of the solution and not the ogres who turn up on the doorstep and put an armlock on the landlord.''
The solution will come if we engage with the proposition that we need a national licensing regime that allows energy efficiency standards to be incorporated as part of the licensing process. It is an easy transition and we can do it in many ways. We have already done it with white goods in shops where people now know the energy efficiency of the product they buy. The measure will allow us to incorporate an 
energy efficiency component into the housing product that we are offering to every citizen in the land. Given that that is a legal duty, I ask the Minister to return to the Committee and explain how on earth we can meet the targets that our own advisers say we cannot meet under our current programmes if we will not incorporate the regulatory process alongside the direct investment process.
Phil Hope: The clause is evidence of a lot of passion on the part of hon. Members who are concerned to see what we might be able to do. As hon. Members are aware, we propose to establish, through the Housing Bill, a system of licensing for houses in multiple occupation. The clause would make it a condition of the granting of a licence that such houses had reached a minimum standard of energy efficiency. I regret to say that the Government are unable to accept the clause, but I want to say a few words in response to hon. Members' comments, because I understand the level of commitment, feeling and passion behind this important issue.
We shall be dealing with unacceptable conditions in residential properties, including licensed and unlicensed HMOs, through part 1 of the Housing Bill, which has recently completed its Committee stage. Under the new regime to deal with housing conditions, local authorities will have wide powers to assess hazards in all dwellings and, where necessary, require remedial works. For example, where cold is assessed as a hazard, the local authority could require the provision of adequate insulation and heating. It would also be able to require adequate ventilation and measures to deal with damp and mould growth.
The housing health and safety system introduced by the Housing Bill will ensure that all the hazards that might typically be found in a house, including an HMO, can be assessed. Moreover—this picks up on some key points that hon. Members raised—it will enable the local authority to prioritise and target the most serious hazards that it finds in the local housing stock. We think that the health and safety system is a proportionate response that does not require landlords to carry out unnecessary work, but which will deal with some conditions that hon. Members so forcefully argue need to be addressed.
Dr. Turner: Will the Minister please explain why the Government still resist any energy efficiency requirement as expressed in whatever rating? If local authorities are objectively to carry out the duties that he has just outlined—for instance, assessing how hazardously cold a building is—they must have an objective framework to apply. An energy efficiency rating is the obvious way to go about that. Why should this not be done?
Phil Hope: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but rather than setting overall energy efficiency targets in the way that he has described, the new health and safety system will deal with the conditions—cold, mould or lack of ventilation—in a property. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, 
South, we are endeavouring through the Housing Bill and the new system that is being introduced to achieve a certain outcome—tackling the appalling conditions that blight so many properties where many of the poorest in our community live.
Setting overall energy efficiency standards and targets, however, would not achieve that outcome. I fully understand that it would achieve other outcomes—energy efficiency outcomes—which is why we are debating these matters while considering a Bill that deals with sustainable and secure buildings. However, we shall tackle conditions that are connected not with poor energy efficiency but with appalling housing conditions through the Housing Bill and the new health and safety rating system associated with it.
Brian White: Given the Minister's remarks, I can understand that local authorities will be able to find a way, using the new system, to address those issues. Why can they not be permitted to get on and do it?
Phil Hope: I am trying to explain to my hon. Friends that our reason for taking this approach is that we want to deal with the bad conditions—the health and safety hazards—in which many people live. I do not have conditions in my constituency similar to those described as existing in Brighton, Kemptown, but I recently visited Derby, where I shadowed a housing standards officer at work as part of the Government's examination of how to reduce bureaucracy. We are trying to ensure that we raise standards without imposing unnecessary bureaucratic measures. I was aghast at some of the conditions. I saw a lot of people; some were drug addicts and there were needles around. I could see the all the difficulties involved and the hazards of an HMO with an absent landlord—who did not, as it happened, turn up to the meeting.
I suggest to my hon. Friends that the action being taken through the Housing Bill and the new health and safety rating system will address those appalling conditions, in which too many of our constituents still live, without the risk of the housing stock needed for people to live in being removed from the market. I think that that is the right approach to take.
I understand that my hon. Friends' priority is energy efficiency, but I am suggesting that we can tackle energy efficiency questions through the health and safety rating system. We must do so by taking into account the genuine personal needs and deprivation of people experiencing hazards and living in cold, damp or mouldy buildings.
Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again, but I must return to the point that we must have an objective means of measuring those outcomes. Otherwise, this will not be very meaningful.
Phil Hope: That point has been made, and the Derby city council officer I was shadowing showed me the new booklet that housing standards officers will use. The system uses objective measures and a complicated formula, which I will not go through now, although we can send it to Members if they require it. The system will ensure that when an HMO is being assessed for licensing and so on, objective 
criteria, through a complicated series of standards, will determine the extent to which the HMO lives up to the standards that we want and expect.
Alan Simpson: I understand what the Minister is trying to say, and having shadowed officials he will have experience of the front line. However, in the context of what he said about better regulation, will he consider this? If a local authority official will have to go in and apply a complicated formula, and then have to persuade a landlord and/or seek enforcement measures, that will be much more difficult than saying to the landlord, ''Look, unless you meet these conditions you don't get a licence.'' Bureaucratically, it is much simpler if everyone knows the hurdles and that unless they get over them they will not be part of the game.
We are in danger of sending a different message to landlords, which is that unless the worst landlords are able to offer the worst conditions we fear driving people out of the market, and that our process must cater for the worst in the market, not everyone's entitlement to a decency standard that all are expected to meet.
Phil Hope: I hope that I have not misled the Committee. There is no doubt that licensing will identify the properties with the worst conditions in which people are living in the worst circumstances, who the landlords are and the extent to which they do or do not meet the fitness requirements—the standards in part 1 of the Housing Bill, using not an energy efficiency standard, which my hon. Friends are pressing for, but the health and safety rating system that it will establish.
By ensuring that we get the people who are managing the properties, the health and safety rating system will allow local authorities to tackle the worst cases and conditions that my hon. Friends and I have seen at first hand and find unacceptable in the 21st century.
My hon. Friends and I have a shared objective; we are arguing about the means to that end. The clause is inappropriate and unnecessary because we are working towards such outcomes through the Housing Bill, the health and safety rating system, and the licensing system for HMOs about which my hon. Friends are concerned. I appreciate that the health and safety rating system does not go as far as they would like, but, given how it will work, it is moving towards their desired system.
Ms Walley: In view of what the Minister has said, I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown can look forward to any further amendments to the Housing Bill as it goes through another place.
Phil Hope: I am being drawn towards providing assurances in areas where it would be unwise for me to do so. The Housing Bill is not my Bill, although I daresay that those points are being argued in full. If my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown or any member of the Committee examines the Housing Bill with its health and safety rating system, detailed requirements, ability to target those landlords who are causing the most difficulty and licensing 
system as well as how new measures will enforce changes relating to cold, ventilation, mould and other issues, they will be reassured that energy efficiency is being delivered through those mechanisms.
Dr. Turner: The very reason I keep returning to these points is that I have read the Housing Bill and it does not deal with them.
Phil Hope: I appreciate that concern, but it is not for me in this Committee to determine what may happen in other Committees dealing with other Bills.
I shall just add another point. I have spoken about how the health and safety rating system addresses certain points that have been raised—I appreciate that some of my colleagues feel that it does not go far enough—but there are other requirements in building regulations. In particular, part L of the building regulations refers to such things as replacement boilers, hot water storage systems and replacement windows and doors.
The powers under clauses 2 and 3 will enable improvements in energy efficiency to be achieved in HMOs because they apply to all buildings in the appropriate circumstances. It is not as though HMOs are not covered by all the other regulations that we are trying to improve and develop, which the Bill will enable.
Clause 8 does not require improvement of energy efficiency, only the possibility that failing HMOs would not be able to continue as HMOs. That is the point that I was trying to make. If we introduced the clause, we would have a problem in deciding where tenants should go if their building failed to meet energy efficiency requirements. I know that we have been around that circuit. My hon. Friends have made points on that matter, but I want to ensure that we understand the significance of the new licensing regime under the Housing Bill. It concerns management standards and identifying properties on which the landlord needs to carry out particular work in respect of the authority intervening. The new health and safety rating system is designed to consider each building and to tailor improvements regarding the need of that building, instead of taking a blanket approach.
I suspect that I have not satisfied to the fullest extent all the concerns of my hon. Friends, but I hope that, to ensure that the Bill is considered on Report, I have given some assurances—their concerns notwithstanding—on how what we are doing elsewhere meets some of their needs. Having said that, I hope that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove does not press for the clause's retention.
Mr. Stunell: We have to make progress and I do not want to detain the Committee. There are 1.5 million homes in multiple occupation in this country and 600,000 households in fuel poverty live in them. They have low standards on average. There are no incentives for landlords to change or improve the situation and tenants face exceptionally high fuel costs compared with the average household. Hon. Members have set out their concerns and their puzzlement at the Government's approach to the clause. However, it was made clear to me from a very early stage that the 
Government would not wear the clause under any circumstances, whatever its merits or demerits.
I certainly do not want to sacrifice what is in all other respects a very necessary and appropriate Bill by making a political statement on the clause. I assure the Minister that I and other colleagues in the House will return to this matter, but I shall not press for a vote at this stage.
Question put and negatived. 
 Clause 8 disagreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Short title, commencement and extent

Amendment made: No. 14, in 
clause 10, page 7, line 25, at end insert— 
 '(1A) The enactments and instruments specified in the Schedule to this Act are repealed or revoked to the extent shown in the second column of that Schedule.'.—[Mr. Stunell.]

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 10, page 7, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert 
 'This Act, apart from the provisions coming into force in accordance with subsection (3),'.
 This is a technical amendment consequent on the previous changes that have been made. It neither adds to nor subtracts from the Bill as a whole. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 16, in 
clause 10, page 7, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert 
 'This section (apart from subsection (1A)) and sections 1, 2(1) to (6), 3(1) to (3) and (5), 5 and 9'.—[Mr. Stunell.]
 Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 1 - Management of works

'In Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 (c.55) (provision that may be included in building regulations) before paragraph 5 insert— 
 ''4B (1) Building regulations may provide that in relation to any work of any type that is being, or that is proposed to be, carried out in prescribed circumstances, there shall be a person appointed for the purposes of this paragraph (the ''appointed person''). 
 (2) The appointed person in relation to any work shall be a person of a prescribed class or description who is appointed by a person determined in accordance with building regulations; and such regulations may make provision for a person to appoint himself. 
 (3) Building regulations may— 
 (a) require appointments for the purposes of this paragraph to be made within such periods or at such times as may be prescribed; 
 (b) make provision in relation to— 
 (i) the termination of a person's appointment; 
 (ii) the replacement of an appointed person. 
 (4) Building regulations may— 
 (a) provide that the appointed person in relation to any work shall have such duties in relation to the planning and 
management of the carrying out of that work as may be prescribed for purposes connected with facilitating compliance with the requirements of building regulations in relation to that work; 
 (b) for those purposes impose duties in relation to— 
 (i) the appointed person, or 
 (ii) anything that he does, or proposes to do, in connection with his duties, 
 on persons who are participating, or who are to participate, in the carrying out of that work. 
 (5) The duties that building regulations may impose on persons who are participating, or who are to participate, in the carrying out of any work include— 
 (a) duties to comply with directions given to them by the appointed person; 
 (b) duties that are framed by reference to determinations made by that person.'' '—[Mr. Stunell.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2 - Registers of information and documents to be kept by local authorities

'After section 91 of the Building Act 1984 (c.55) insert— 
 ''91A Registers to be kept by local authorities 
 (1) A local authority shall keep in a register such information and documents as may be prescribed in connection with their functions, powers and duties conferred or imposed by or under this Act. 
 (2) The information and documents that may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above include, in particular— 
 (a) documents that are given or issued to, or deposited with, a local authority in accordance with provision made by or under this Act, or copies of such documents; 
 (b) copies of documents that are given, made or issued by a local authority in accordance with provision so made; 
 (c) information with respect to documents of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b); 
 (d) information with respect to matters to which such documents relate. 
 (3) Information and documents that are required to be kept in a register under subsection (1) above shall be so kept for the prescribed period. 
 (4) A local authority— 
 (a) shall maintain the register required under subsection (1) above in the prescribed manner; 
 (b) shall ensure that the register is available for inspection by members of the public during prescribed periods; 
 (c) shall, in prescribed circumstances, provide to members of the public, on request, copies of information and documents kept in the register; 
 (d) may, in prescribed circumstances, charge a member of the public to whom they provide such copies a fee calculated in the prescribed manner. 
 (5) In this section— 
 'documents' includes notices, certificates, orders, consents, demands and plans; 
 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section. 
 (6) Regulations under this section may— 
 (a) provide for a provision thereof to apply generally, or in a particular area; 
 (b) make different provision for different areas and generally different provision for different circumstances or cases; 
 (c) include such supplemental, transitional and incidental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient. 
 (7) The transitional provision that may be included in regulations under this section includes transitional provision in relation to information that, immediately before the coming into force of the regulations, was contained in registers kept by local authorities under section 56. 
 (8) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument, which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'' '—[Mr. Stunell.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule - Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: No. 17, in 
schedule , page 8, line 4, column 2, at end insert 
 'In section 56, subsections (1) to (4).'.
 No. 18, in 
schedule , page 8, line 6, at end insert— 
 'Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1905) 
 In article 3, paragraph (9)(a) and (b).'—[Mr. Stunell.]
 Schedule, as amended, agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Phil Hope: Before we conclude our proceedings, I wish to say a few words. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on successfully piloting his Bill through Committee stage. We have had two very good sittings and have learned a great deal about beauty from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He suggested that in future we might use indices of beauty. We shall see how that works in future legislation.
 I wish to thank all the members of the Committee. We have had some very good debates on amendments and clauses. The Government were unable to accept everything that hon. Members would have liked, particularly today. It was unfortunate that after we went through six clauses to which I was able on behalf of the Government to accept, promote and welcome various amendments, today I was unable to do so. However, the spirit of the Bill is positive, and members of the Committee made powerful contributions. I thank them for that. 
 I wish to thank the Clerks, Hansard and all the officials who kept us in good order—not that we needed to be kept in good order. I also thank officials of the Department, who have provided a great deal of support to members of the Committee and to me in taking the Bill to the conclusion of its Committee stage. 
 Finally, I thank you, Mr. Hurst, for your chairmanship of the Committee. We asked for alacrity and thoroughness, and we got both. I am grateful for your efforts in that regard.

Alan Hurst: Order. Strictly speaking, these matters should not be debated at this point, but I know how versatile hon. Members are in seeking points of order.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. It is strange that you should have said that.
 Let me just say that I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on bringing the Bill this far and on the way in which it has been taken through the Committee. Contributions from all parts of the House have added to its proper consideration. 
 Further to that point of order, Mr. Hurst, let me thank you and all of those associated with the Committee for the work that they have done in helping my hon. Friends—I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) gave me his able and assiduous support this morning—and I to scrutinise the Bill properly, and the Minister and Government Members for treating the Opposition with the kid gloves that the Minister knows that I need, because I am a sensitive flower, although not necessarily a beautiful one. Perhaps I can end by saying that, not just an index of beauty, but one of grace, elegance and style might also be added during the further consideration of the Bill, because, Mr. Hurst, as you personify, it is the pursuit of truth and beauty that is the greatest purpose of parliamentarians.

Andrew Stunell: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Hurst. I thank the Minister. Today has perhaps been disappointing from my point of view, but I recognise that he and his officials have done their best to be helpful and constructive. In his defence, I would simply say that where he has not been able to be helpful and destructive—I mean constructive—[Laughter.] Where he has not been able to be helpful and constructive it has been largely on matters outside his area of responsibility.
 I thank hon. Members on the Committee, who by their attendance and assiduous participation have shown just how important the topic really is. I believe that the Bill will make a contribution. As I have said several times, it is not the answer to everything, but it is a piece in the jigsaw. I hope that it will be reported to the House and that it will proceed well from then on. 
 I thank you, Mr. Hurst, as Chairman of the Committee, for keeping us in order when we were so often on the verge of boiling over. It has been an interesting experience piloting the Bill so far, and I look forward to reaching the harbour in due course.

Alan Hurst: Those were not, of course, points of order, but matters of civility.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.